Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: SAG-AFTRA was furious that they were unsuccessful in strong arming Video Game publishers into accepting residual payments for Voice Actors during the 2016 to 2017 Voice Actor strike.
1. Summary of the results
The original statement contains both accurate and inaccurate elements. SAG-AFTRA did indeed fail to secure residual payments during the 2016-2017 strike [1] [1]. Instead of residuals, the union negotiated a compromise in the form of a sliding-scale bonus payment system, ranging from $75 for the first session to $2,100 for ten or more sessions [1] [2]. The strike lasted 340 days before reaching this agreement [1].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
Several crucial pieces of context are missing from the original statement:
- The union actually secured a compromise solution through bonus payments, rather than simply failing outright [1]
- There was a more recent SAG-AFTRA strike in 2024-2025 that focused on different issues, primarily AI protections and compensation [3]
- While voice actors were critical of the agreement, union leadership framed it as a victory [2]
- The original 2016-2017 negotiations sought performance bonuses based on game sales, not just straight residuals [1]
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The statement contains several biased elements:
- The use of the term "strong arming" is emotionally charged and misleading, as this was a legitimate labor negotiation [1]
- The statement oversimplifies the outcome by focusing only on the failure to secure residuals, ignoring the compromise solution that was reached [1] [2]
- The statement's characterization of SAG-AFTRA as "furious" is not supported by the sources, though there was disappointment among voice actors [1]
The framing benefits video game publishers by portraying union actions as aggressive and unreasonable, while downplaying the legitimate labor concerns and the compromise that was ultimately reached. This narrative serves to undermine future union negotiations by casting previous actions in a negative light.